Healthcare spending versus mortality in central nervous system cancer: Has anything changed?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The financial implications of central nervous system (CNS) cancers are substantial, not only for the healthcare service and payers, but also for the patients who bear the brunt of direct, indirect, and intangible costs. This study sought to investigate the impact of healthcare spending on CNS cancer survival using recent US data. Methods: This study used public data from the Disease Expenditure Project 2016 and the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The primary outcome was the annual healthcare spending trend from 1996 and 2016 on CNS tumors adjusted for disease prevalence, alongside morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes included drivers of change in healthcare expenditures for CNS cancers. Subgroup analysis was performed stratified by age group, expenditure type, and care type provided. Results: There was a significant increase in total healthcare spending on CNS cancers from $2.72 billion (95% CI: $2.47B to $2.97B) in 1996 to $6.85 billion (95% CI: $5.98B to $7.57B) in 2016. Despite the spending increase, the mortality rate per 100 000 people increased, with 5.30 ± 0.47 in 1996 and 7.02 ± 0.47 in 2016, with an average of 5.78 ± 0.47 deaths per 100 000 over the period. The subgroups with the highest expenditure included patients aged 45 to 64, those with private insurance, and those receiving inpatient care. Conclusions: This study highlights a significant rise in healthcare costs for CNS cancers without corresponding improvements in mortality rate, indicating a mismatch of healthcare spending, contemporary advances, and patient outcomes as it relates to mortality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".